No Lee. That is a gross oversimplification of what I said. You are, in effect, dumbing it down.
They are not superseded because they were “wrong” but because were found to be less useful.
Speaking for myself, I find the Aristotelian framework (including its obsession with “causes”) to be less useful because it feels clunky and unnuanced – and thus not particularly useful for dealing with the complexities of modern life.
This is perhaps part of why it appealed to Lewis – he seems to have been a rabid anti-modernist.
Yes, you Lee Merrill can distort what we on this forum, what psychiatrists, and what the courts say, to fit it into the pigeonholes of an Aristotlan framework – but then you are again dumbing-down what we say.
Similarly, when somebody hears somebody else talking about various shades of grey, they could oversimplify what is said to be referring to “black and white”. This person would be flummoxed by what they’d interpret as “darker grey black” transforming into “light shades of grey black” (“what the heck is a ‘lighter shade of black’?”) – in the same way that you, Lewis, and much of the apologetics community are flummoxed by evolution and other emergent processes.
But the inadequacy of your framework is not the problem of evolution Lee. It is a “you problem”.
This is an inapt analogy Lee. Facial hair has come and gone repeatedly over the centuries. It was certainly quite in fashion, even among the wealthy, around the turn of the 20th century.
Aristotle on the other hand has been in eclipse for over three centuries. That substantial length of time is not a mere “fashion”. This eclipse coincides with most of modern science – possibly because his framework is fairly difficult to reconcile with modern science.
I really don’t care what you say, what you say you “think”, what you say your “view” is, or what you “point to” Lee. I only care about what you can provide verifiable external evidence for.
If you say “psychiatrists think X” – then I want (e.g.) a link to a piece by a psychiatrist saying “I think X”. (more on this below)
If you cannot do something like that then I simply don’t care.
Yes, which rather obviously implies that they found Aristotle to be less-than-interesting and/or less-than-helpful.
“It is taught in universities” does not entail “it is useful”. I’m sure you can find all sorts of old, out-dated and superseded ideas taught in universities.
There are almost-certainly many universities that still teach Marxism. Do you think that has “good things to say to us today”?
I would suggest that is a truly muddled statement.
No Lee, you haven’t!
You’ve dumbed down a lot of what others say and do, in order to fit it into an Aristotelian framework – but that is not evidence!
Because you keep repeating the same false claim!
Exactly.
In the eyes of the court the “atoms in my brain”, including their motion, in addition to all the other atoms in your body, are you Lee!
So when you write "motions of atoms in my brain made me do it” a court will hear “I made me do it”.
Your thinking on this appears clunky, unnuanced, and completely uncompelling. Is it then surpsing that neither I, nor it seems anybody else, accepts this as a valid “reason”.
All of which have been similarly completely uncompelling.
I have addressed them Lee. But the core of my disagreement with them can be summarised as:
I do not accept an Aristotlan framework, I do not accept “reasoning cause” and “unreasoning cause” as useful categories, and especially I do not accept your dumbing down my statements in order to fit them into your archaic clunky framework.
But we have evidence Lee – your own statements.
For example:
When you stated this Lee you did not cite a psychiatrist saying that this is what they do, you did not cite a psychiatric manual or textbook saying that this is what they should do, nor anything similar. You made a statement without evidence. This is what an assertion is Lee. And you have done this pervasively.
It would seem you don’t actually understand what an assertion is, just like you in an earlier post demonstrated that you don’t understand what evidence is.
Now Lee you are massively dumbing down the entire field of psychology into the definition of a single label.
All that this convinces me of is that your framework is woefully incapable of handling the complexities of the modern world.
No Lee. I am explicitly stating that you are incapable of understanding what I am saying – which was not “psychiatrists don’t recognize this”.
“Delirium exists” =/= “reasoning cause … unreasoning cause … nothing else or in-between!”.
Addendum:
Clearly, “if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” 